They're beautiful children but they're pretty much swallowed up by the confusingly random debris and vegetation. Too bad they weren't higher on the stairs so the backlight could make them all stand out a bit more, the way the standing boy does. Of course you'd have been faced with a choice of using a bit of fill or letting the background blow out the way it is now. I suspect this particular shot would have worked out better in color.

I like this a lot, but if you were a digital guy I'd tell you to go back and re-do the b&w conversion. For you, I guess I'll suggest that you burn and dodge a bit, or possibly create some masks and do selective contrast adjustments. The children are just not well enough separated from the background.

This is probably worth some real effort, though, I see a fine photograph in there under the chaos. Possibly a fairly radical treatment (Gene Smith's Walk to Paradise Garden comes to mind) would be fruitful here.

I'm in agreement with John and Francois. It is a loveely picture, and I don't in the least mind having to do a little bit of work to see the seated kids. The suggestions made for "improvements" would make it a different picture, not necessarily a better one, IMHO.

Just goes to show how much better, forgiving, film is in handling overblown highlights.

That children are not so easily discernible from the surrounding, especially when viewed from a distance, I find to be the strength of the photo. Requires you to come closer and explore it, and shows how much their lives are intertwined with it, metaphorically.

As for color... hmmm, i do not know... not sure they had color film in the 17th century.

Thanks all ...this was shot in B&W / no conversion --- yes, it really needed a fill. This was a quick photo > they were all just sitting on the steps , as I came around the bend. The boy in the middle stood because he could translate for the others ..seems he knew enough English to keep them stationary for a minute. . This was over in minutes ...and they scattered. This image has had a lot of CS work > dodging / shadow~ highlights~ selecting.... Didn't have time to use my spot meter. If I would had exposed for the kids faces @ Zone 5/6 > there would be no background. At ISO 50 > this was already at a 15th @ 5.6 The exposure should had been 1 stop brighter ( or time to change the back to a higher ISO ) and then a minus 2 development > that would had brought those highlights under control. With all my CS manipulations the wall highlights are still in Zone 9 .. there is detail .

You guys must have those newfangled cameras that actually auto focus / auto exposure/ no tripod / floating ISO

I dunno, Jogo. I kind of like the earlier high key, partially blown upstairs. It's a tough image to deal with and the biggest problem is the random vegetation on the stairs. That's why I think the shot might be better in color. I realize there's no way to check that now, but I suspect color might set off the kids more emphatically.

There is nothing much wrong with this picture at all. Your first instincts, and subsequent printing, were correct - the background is far better somewhat bleached out, as it lends the overall effect of sun and warmth to the image. If the children had been in full sun it would have been a different photograph altogether, and not necessarily a better one.

All it is, and this is where folks get led astray, is that this is a picture which does not work small on a computer screen. It needs to be printed big so that we can get properly drawn into the image (and the detail is there in the frame to make this work).

John

Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DBand a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits

The background is fine imo. Not only does it not distract it adds to the chaos the children are in. What is needed is for the faces to be dodged in PS and this will make them stand out a little better. Overall this is a very fine image that needs only a little work.

Well I have worked a lot of time in CS, on this one ...all the way to whitening their eyes. ...so any more would start to look unacceptable to me. Will rescan when the Plustek 120 is available. I like to airy feeling of the first exposure . too. Thanks

Well I have worked a lot of time in CS, on this one ...all the way to whitening their eyes. ...so any more would start to look unacceptable to me. Will rescan when the Plustek 120 is available. I like to airy feeling of the first exposure . too. Thanks

If you come up with a "better" scan and want to give away this one, I'll be happy to accept it as a gift!

The first version is better, but neither works particularly well. I agree with Russ that the setting is far too busy for the subjects. It looks oversharpened to my eyes and the charcoal and ash effect isn't helping..

The first version is better, but neither works particularly well. I agree with Russ that the setting is far too busy for the subjects. It looks oversharpened to my eyes and the charcoal and ash effect isn't helping..

Candid's can be tricky sometimes -- I like the lightness of the background > just like a floating, painted > old stage backdrop .. But way too underexposed ( charcoal /ash effect ) and the my scanning techniques were not up too par > nearly 20 years ago ...

Love to try this one again > maybe a two pass scan for highlights and mids ...

There is nothing much wrong with this picture at all. Your first instincts, and subsequent printing, were correct - the background is far better somewhat bleached out, as it lends the overall effect of sun and warmth to the image. If the children had been in full sun it would have been a different photograph altogether, and not necessarily a better one.

All it is, and this is where folks get led astray, is that this is a picture which does not work small on a computer screen. It needs to be printed big so that we can get properly drawn into the image (and the detail is there in the frame to make this work).

John

Exactly my thought too. The first version is better and it needs to be seen as a bigger print.